Talk:Lucasfilm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disney acquisition actually closed now[edit]

The Disney acquisition has officially closed, which the article now reflects.----Mattmatt1987 (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference to the official announcement/statement by The Walt Disney Company from The Walt Disney Company's corporate website that the merger has now officially been consumated. I placed it in the Parent section so that should be the end of that. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Is Lucasfilm a subsidiary company of 20th Century Fox? Reading the article it sounds like Lucasfilm is an independent company. But the movies open with the 20th Century Fox logo and the Web site of 20th Century Fox lists the latest Star Wars Movie at "Now in Theatre". -- Patrice 12:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

No, Lucasfilm is independent, Fox just distributes Star Wars. Indiana Jones, for instance, is distributed by Paramount. TerokNor 13:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. -- Patrice 15:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about this. It was at least at one time (maybe now as well) a subsidiary of Warner Bros, that I read on the back of the box for the video of the Mosquito Coast. The snare 06:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parent The Walt Disney Company[edit]

Has the sale actually closed? Isn't it subject to government approval?71.243.221.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sale has not been closed. Yes, it is subject to government approval based on anti-trust given the size of Lucasfilms and Disney. Especially in the Comic Book industry where Dark Horse Comics publishes Star Wars comics as its major/main line of comics, moving them to Marvel would cut the number of major publishers down to 2 (DC, Marvel) or 3 (DC, Marvel, Image).
So would editors please stop indicating that Lucasfilms is owned by Disney, so I don't have request a page block. Spshu (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to ask about this because in the InfoBox it lists The Walt Disney Company as owner. Since the buyout has not yet been consumated I will remove that The Walt Disney Company is the owner with an advisement not to change it until an official announcement has occurred. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could read "George Lucas (acquisition by The Walt Disney Company pending)". Thoughts? ----Mattmatt1987 (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good alternative for the time being. MisterShiney ✉ 07:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and make the change, but if anyone has other ideas, let's continue to discuss it here. ----Mattmatt1987 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to having something like that included in fact I think it is a fantastic idea. Thanks to User:MisterShiney and Mattmatt1987 for your help here. 19:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucasfilm Ltd[edit]

I think that his company was sold to Disney last time. TopCashBack2 (talk). 4 December 2012, —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisition Closed[edit]

Now that government regulators and anti-trust commissions have approved the acquisition [1] [2], is it safe to begin referring to Lucasfilm (and related articles) as Disney subsidiaries? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support inclusion. Since the government regulators and anti-trust commissions approved the acquisition, I think it is save to assume that we should refer to Lucasfilm and its related articles as Disney subsidiaries. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right, that's a good reason to go ahead and start the appropriate template additions and categorization to all affected articles. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the deal hasn't yet closed, they just received government clearance and The Walt Disney Co. and Lucasfilm Ltd. has not formally announced when the closing on the buyout will take place. See here. So as of my post on 12/06/2012 George Lucas is still the owner. Relying solely on news articles that state that a company has closed on a merger or acquisition is not reliable in my humble opinion and should be solely on an announcement made by the corporation itself and in fact there is nothing on The Walt Disney Company's website about the acquistion closing so until then I believe it should be reverted back. What does everyone else think. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should revert it back. I guess I spoke too soon. My mistake! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, I guess. :P ~ Jedi94 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Semi-Protection[edit]

Reasoning: As discussed above The Walt Disney Company and LucasFilm Ltd. have received clearance from U.S Government officials but a definitive date that the merger will be consumated has not yet been announced, see referenced article from the Las Vegas Sun, click here. Unfortunately there are some Wikipedians mostly unregistered IP users who are constantly reverting the Ownership from George Lucas to The Walt Disney Company without properly researching it or even going onto this talk and discussing it first. I'd like to request that it be Semi-Protected until such time as an official announcement has been made either on The Walt Disney Company's website (http://www.thewaltdisneycompany.com/) or the LucasFilm website (http://www.lucasfilm.com/) stating that the acquisition of LucasFilm has been officially consumated and not just based on third party news reports. Thank you in advance. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I took the liberty of resubmitting via Twinkle using the same reason copy/pasted from above. MisterShiney ✉ 22:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Literature Story policy[edit]

Shouldnt the notes about "canon" elements of literature in the Star wars universe be moved to its proper article,I dont think it belongs in this article about the a sub company of A DOW component,may cause confusion for financial researchers,maybe tie it up in a link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongcraze (talk • contribs) 03:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lucasfilm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucasfilm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ltd." in its name?[edit]

Why remove it from the article despite the logo and opening credits saying "A Lucasfilm Ltd. Production" otherwise?

--XSMan2016 (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Carano Controversy[edit]

Why doesn't this article discuss the HUGE Gina Carano controversy? 98.97.176.216 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be WP:UNDUE to mention that on this article and is best covered on the Gina Carano article. Nemov (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT because: 1) Her character is very minor and insignificant compared to the rest of the Star Wars universe. She's just a footnote who hardly affected the universe in any notable way. 2) It's not really HUGE, it's mostly overblown controversy fueled by politics. 3) Similar controversies involving people who are actually significant in their franchises like James Gunn and Roseanne haven't been included on their respective studio articles. — Starforce13 23:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Programs stolen from other sections[edit]

Most of the programs had been stolen from other sections of the Lucasfilm article. I had to remove them off because it was stolen from other sections that were previously added. 86.15.93.32 (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this request. Nothing prohibits something from appearing on a list if it's mentioned earlier in the article. I'm not sure what you mean by "stolen." Nemov (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The word "stolen" means "steal" and most documentaries had been stolen from the "Documentaries and more", "Television films and specials" and "Attractions" sections which were placed on the "Other productions" section. They had stolen them and added them below abiet added smaller, that's why it must be removed. 86.15.93.32 (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split productions[edit]

I think it needs to be split now, Lucasfilm has done a lot productions with more to come. 2601:152:4400:3100:8DF7:9110:E769:305F (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree on this. If you look at Marvel & Pixar, they both have separate pages for their lists of productions. Chandos1 (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went head and made the split the main Lucasfilm article is not as cluttered now DoctorHver (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Shelved Projects[edit]

This article is getting a lot of edits removing the future projects based on the article in Variety. Variety is a good source, but much of the article is in conflict with the Deadline report.[3]. Until there's something official from Lucasfilm or high level sources are aligned the status quo should remain. Nemov (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Owner infobox[edit]

Disney Entertainment and Walt Disney Studios are just divisions/business segments and do NOT count as actual companies or even subsidiaries. That being said, they can stay in the “parent/holding company” infobox, but The Walt Disney Company belongs in the principal owner infobox. Let me know if anyone disagrees before I make any changes. NorthPark1 (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cytkory and @Jedi94 updated[4] this back in February to reflect the structural changes at Disney. Per Template:Infobox company, it states: "Do not include any higher-level owners, like the parents' parent companies." Nemov (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox company only applies to when parent companies are actual official companies, and not just mere divisions or business units of a company such as The Walt Disney Company. Walt Disney Studios is not an actual company or even a subsidiary, and neither is Disney Entertainment; these are just business units of TWDC, which is directly responsible for hiring processes of all divisions. The only time that parents’ parent companies should not be included is when principal ownership differs from direct parent, and/or parent company is no more than a division/business segment as opposed to a subsidiary. NorthPark1 (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Kennedy era, 2012–present[edit]

This section needs to be summarized. It's far too long and become a dumping ground for too much WP:NOTTHENEWS content. Nemov (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucasfilm&oldid=1208611166"